Read this it says... we looked very fine tuned... but multiverse and top down view of cosmology in which the question causes the answer may be an explanation.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
"But cosmology poses questions of a very different character. In our past there is an epoch of the early universe when quantum gravity was important. The remnants of this early phase are all around us. The central problem in cosmology is to
understand why these remnants are what they are, and how the distinctive features
of our universe emerged from the big bang. Clearly it is not an S-matrix that is the
relevant observable
3
for these predictions, since we live in the middle of this particular
experiment. Furthermore, we have no control over the initial state of the universe,
and there is certainly no opportunity for observing multiple copies of the universe.
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain
cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a
bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency
3
See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological
spacetimes.
1- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one
from predicting what a typical observer would see.
Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology in the string landscape,
based not on the classical idea of a single history for the universe but on the quantum
sum over histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the universe naturally
leads to a framework for cosmology where amplitudes for alternative histories of the
universe are computed with boundary conditions at late times only. We thus envision
a set of alternative universes in the landscape, with amplitudes given by the no
boundary path integral [13]."
---
Its funny you 2 elitetrader atheist clowns are being defeated by science and the internet every time.
you can lead and et atheist to science but you can't make him think.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
"But cosmology poses questions of a very different character. In our past there is an epoch of the early universe when quantum gravity was important. The remnants of this early phase are all around us. The central problem in cosmology is to
understand why these remnants are what they are, and how the distinctive features
of our universe emerged from the big bang. Clearly it is not an S-matrix that is the
relevant observable
3
for these predictions, since we live in the middle of this particular
experiment. Furthermore, we have no control over the initial state of the universe,
and there is certainly no opportunity for observing multiple copies of the universe.
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain
cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a
bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency
3
See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological
spacetimes.
1- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one
from predicting what a typical observer would see.
Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology in the string landscape,
based not on the classical idea of a single history for the universe but on the quantum
sum over histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the universe naturally
leads to a framework for cosmology where amplitudes for alternative histories of the
universe are computed with boundary conditions at late times only. We thus envision
a set of alternative universes in the landscape, with amplitudes given by the no
boundary path integral [13]."
---
Its funny you 2 elitetrader atheist clowns are being defeated by science and the internet every time.
you can lead and et atheist to science but you can't make him think.
and try show how Lindemann's proof is 'a negative' in MATH.